JHostler wrote:In the spirit of [...] Occam [...]a not nearly as interesting Erdnase theory. [was posited on this thread some time ago that the ] book was a house job perpetrated by Drake, compiled from a number of sources

There's something about holding a mirror up to nature as it were... for some who want to find an author in their reflections. Perhaps the scene is still lit by some afterglow of Vernon's approval?

Carlo Morpurgo wrote:I was never a big supporter myself of the pyramid thing, as a mean of proving Erdnase's identity. It was a curiosity for me. However, I recall that the idea was to slide the lines so that they remain within the text frame. It's a lot harder to come up with stuff with that restriction.

And why that particular restriction? I find these combinatorial "Dr. Matrix" games completely pointless. This is on a 3rd or 4th level removed from any actual evidence and therefore pure fantasy.

Which one? J. H. Green was dead. Kid Royal had been active in Chicago in the 1890s and wrote a pitchbook that covered some of the same ground as Expert. There was John Philip Quinn, and Steve Holcomb out of Louisville. Harry Brolaski wrote an expose book called Easy Money in 1911. Kid Canfield got started about 10 years after Expert.

Carlo Morpurgo wrote:I was never a big supporter myself of the pyramid thing, as a mean of proving Erdnase's identity. It was a curiosity for me. However, I recall that the idea was to slide the lines so that they remain within the text frame. It's a lot harder to come up with stuff with that restriction.

And why that particular restriction? I find these combinatorial "Dr. Matrix" games completely pointless. This is on a 3rd or 4th level removed from any actual evidence and therefore pure fantasy.

I was trying to come up with a reasonable restriction, assuming that the author indeed wanted to leave such a clue (which I am not claiming nor supporting). For example, a restriction due to physical constraints, where the letters were placed before being printed. I am not sure how that process worked exactly, but I am guessing there was a set rectangular frame. (like this one maybe? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GPQlpwames8/T ... C_0082.JPG)

Out of curiosity, would you still claim no evidence if WESANDERS were spelled using the first letters of each line?

Last edited by Carlo Morpurgo on November 11th, 2014, 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Which one? J. H. Green was dead. Kid Royal had been active in Chicago in the 1890s and wrote a pitchbook that covered some of the same ground as Expert. There was John Philip Quinn, and Steve Holcomb out of Louisville. Harry Brolaski wrote an expose book called Easy Money in 1911. Kid Canfield got started about 10 years after Expert.

It's the line about reformed(?) gamblers that drew my attention. What/Who was around at the time?

Carlo Morpurgo wrote:Out of curiosity, would you still claim no evidence if WESANDERS were spelled using the first letters of each line?

It would certainly be a lot stronger. However, the real problem starts much earlier. What evidence is there that the name is an anagram or a simple backwards spelling? The only evidence I am aware of is hearsay. That's all. So all the work that has been done on anagrammatical theories, be it the simple backward spelling, or the complex anagram, dangles on an extremely thin thread without any solid evidence.

I personally am not at all a believer in the anagram theory. The fact that the author wanted to hide his real name is nothing unusual nor hard to believe. Many authors choose to do that, and with a subject like gambling it is even more natural. But what evidence is there that the author used an anagram?

Carlo Morpurgo wrote:Out of curiosity, would you still claim no evidence if WESANDERS were spelled using the first letters of each line?

It would certainly be a lot stronger. However, the real problem starts much earlier. What evidence is there that the name is an anagram or a simple backwards spelling? The only evidence I am aware of is hearsay. That's all. So all the work that has been done on anagrammatical theories, be it the simple backward spelling, or the complex anagram, dangles on an extremely thin thread without any solid evidence.

I personally am not at all a believer in the anagram theory. The fact that the author wanted to hide his real name is nothing unusual nor hard to believe. Many authors choose to do that, and with a subject like gambling it is even more natural. But what evidence is there that the author used an anagram?

There's absolutely nothing wrong in making assumptions when solving a case, and see where those assumptions lead - in fact I think it's a very effective procedure. If you only make a move after you see a hard piece of evidence you may be immobile forever. Especially in a case like this one, where hard evidence for anything at all is pretty hard to get.

JHostler wrote: I simply suggested that the book was likely a group effort, and that Roterberg may have participated - the evidence (YES!) being that both his and "Erdnase's" books were submitted for copyright within two days of each other... and, coincidentally (?), Roterberg's book was published by Drake.

All things considered, the proximity of those two copyright dates - which I don't recall anyone ever mentioning - provides a more robust clue than many of the endlessly rehashed word games

An interesting observation.

But why the two days?

That is to say, if you have two books to submit for copyright, why not submit them on the same day? Why submit one on Saturday and then wait until Monday to submit the other one?

Was our man Erdnase actually Roterberg?-----no, he wasn't. as noted in David Ben's "Erdnase Unmasked" when describing the exact same sleight, one man thought it was brilliant, the other man despised it. Beyond this type of circumstantial evidence as to why they're NOT one and the same, there is no evidence - circumstantial or otherwise to suggest they are.

Did Roterberg know Erdnase?-----Very likely he did. Not only was it likely that Erdnase personally dropped off those first editions that were being remaindered to Roterbergs shop, he also may very well have bumped into Houdini in the shop whereupon he showed him the change as described in EATCT, one which Houdini then took as his own, knowing full well the "unknown" Erdnase would never be the wiser. It's also a distinct possibility that Erdnase purchased some of those magic tomes we all know he had read prior to writing EATCT from Roterberg's shop, perhaps even Roterberg himself.

Are some folks getting more than a bit lazy in their research, revisiting old candidates and previously researched happenstances without first performing a comprehensive personal review of the Genii thread, or Marty or Hurt or David A's and David B's exhaustive research on the subject matter?-----yes, very much so. For example bringing Roterberg up as a serious candidate long after he's been dispatched in detail is of absolutely no value to anybody.

What's my point?There is FAR more evidence to support W.E. Sanders and E.S. Andrews than there is for ANY other candidate.Until one can reasonably present at least as strong a circumstantial or factual evidence as exists for Sanders or Andrews, presenting "new" names as legitimate candidates sans any evidence whatsoever, and expecting to be taken seriously will only result in disappointment.

Last edited by Roger M. on November 11th, 2014, 7:09 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Dick, the S. W. Erdnase Report came from a small printing, and Richard Kyle loaned me a copy to use in my research. To my knowledge, there are a few copies floating around the world.

It was written and compiled by Elyk D. Rahcir--a very mysterious author. I haven't been able to learn anything about him. Anyone who can crack the code of his identity should tackle the Erdnase mystery...

I used it for details in my Genii and Montana articles. It contains a nice chronological summary of the collaboration and research between Alexander and Kyle, much of it drawn from notes taken during their meetings.

Carlo Morpurgo wrote:There's absolutely nothing wrong in making assumptions when solving a case, and see where those assumptions lead - in fact I think it's a very effective procedure. If you only make a move after you see a hard piece of evidence you may be immobile forever. Especially in a case like this one, where hard evidence for anything at all is pretty hard to get.

Correct, there is nothing wrong with assumptions, but when you stack one assumption on top of another one, and on top of that yet another one then you arrive in Lala land. It is not particularly productive. It adds more noise than signal. On that basis one could derive all kind of nonsense 'evidence'.

1) SW Erdnase is a name derived by spelling the real name backwards.2) Expanding 1) to a complex anagram.3) Assuming that the author also hid his name in the front matter somehow4) Finding that name by a particular rule of how lines of text can be moved around.

Really?! And that is what some consider the leading theory. In my humble opinion this is pure nonsense.

Carlo Morpurgo wrote:There's absolutely nothing wrong in making assumptions when solving a case, and see where those assumptions lead - in fact I think it's a very effective procedure. If you only make a move after you see a hard piece of evidence you may be immobile forever. Especially in a case like this one, where hard evidence for anything at all is pretty hard to get.

Correct, there is nothing wrong with assumptions, but when you stack one assumption on top of another one, and on top of that yet another one then you arrive in Lala land. It is not particularly productive. It adds more noise than signal. On that basis one could derive all kind of nonsense 'evidence'.

If you are doing it like a Lala-lander you will most likely arrive there, i.e. where you started from. What if you make a reasonable assumption that it's E.S Andrews, say, you do an intelligent search on all such guys back then, filter them out and then stumble on a handwritten copy of the book (or some other hard evidence)? After all an effort HAS been made in this direction, admitedly with no luck, but that is not the point...(what IF). This is how difficult cases are solved.

1) SW Erdnase is a name derived by spelling the real name backwards.2) Expanding 1) to a complex anagram.3) Assuming that the author also hid his name in the front matter somehow4) Finding that name by a particular rule of how lines of text can be moved around.

Really?! And that is what some consider the leading theory. In my humble opinion this is pure nonsense.

Each theory involving anagrams and such has a lot more going on than what you are posting here. Do your homework and read the articles. Just to be clear one more time, I am not considering the line shifting of the pyramid particularly enlightening myself, just a bit of a curiostity supporting Marty's theory, which is far more complex than your 1)-4) points.

By the way, you wrote

"Hurt McDermott and myself thought that this also strengthened the case for August Roterberg since Roter-Berg literally means in German "Red Mountain or Red Hill" - so two ways of describing the same thing: 'Berg' and 'Erdnasen'. Roterberg has been put forward as Erdnase before for many good reasons but it seems there is no current champion for him. I think that the Erdnasen term usage to describe hills and mountains does strengthen the Roterberg case."

How is that ANY better than the anagram idea? Seems pure fantasy to me! Where's the evidence?

Your entire Erdnase "worldview" - like that of many others - is based on an unproven assumption: that there was but a single primary author. And how can you be 100% certain that Roterberg played absolutely no role when there's so little to be certain about across the board?

Jon Townsend -

The correct spelling is, indeed, Ockham as I was referring to William himself.

While I appreciate the research conducted by our esteemed scholars thus far, none of it has led to a truly compelling candidate... one that just screams "it's me." In fact, much of this research has been plagued with good intentions, conjecture and wishful thinking... and I simply refuse to value candidates based on the number of words written about them. Groupthink, anyone?

Consider the technology driving office administration in 1902. Is it within the realm of possibility that two copyright applications received on the same day might be processed and/or dated two days apart? What are the odds that two magic-related publications from Chicago, under these circumstances (i.e., having the same ultimate publisher), would be copyrighted at virtually the same time? Does "Earth Nose" trump this? Really??

Again, I'm not proposing Roterberg as "the author." I believe this was a group effort.

Bill you are correct, but I am showing the line of argumentation how one assumption was added on top of another. Originally it was one assumption, the name is spelled backwards. That by itself is a huge leap of faith but by itself a fair assumption to make and to explore. But when that didn't reveal a promising enough candidate another assumption is added - well let's expand this to a complex anagram rather than a simple backwards spelling. And now to justify this arbitrary business we are searching for names that are hidden in text with further arbitrary assumptions. To justify these arbitrary assumptions we find additional boundary conditions that have to be met, etc.

If we consider this entertainment then I have no problem with it. It is all fun. But if anybody tries to argue that this has anything to do with good research then I have to respectfully disagree.

Your entire Erdnase "worldview" - like that of many others - is based on an unproven assumption: that there was but a single primary author.

M.D. Smith has informed us that he sat down in a Chicago hotel room with the sole author, S.W. Erdnase and drew a few pictures of his hands.There were no photos taken that day, and there was no other guests in the room to back up the story, but that Smith was drawing pictures of the hands of the author of the book that cold day is one of the few facts we have in the Erdnase story.

This in and of itself is 1000% more convincing than an opinion sans one whit of evidence that there was more than one author.

Perhaps there was more than one author, perhaps there were five authors ... but the evidence to date (noted above) indicates there was one author.

If you've got solid evidence to counter this existing (and longstanding) evidence, bring it forward. If all you've got is a "feeling", that and 5 bucks will get you a cup of strong coffee.

Your entire Erdnase "worldview" - like that of many others - is based on an unproven assumption: that there was but a single primary author.

M.D. Smith has informed us that he sat down in a Chicago hotel room with the sole author, S.W. Erdnase and drew a few pictures of his hands.There were no photos taken that day, and there was no other guests in the room to back up the story, but that Smith was drawing pictures of the hands of the author of the book that cold day is one of the few facts we have in the Erdnase story.

This in and of itself is 1000% more convincing than an opinion sans one whit of evidence that there was more than one author.

Perhaps there was more than one author, perhaps there were five authors ... but the evidence to date (noted above) indicates there was one author.

If you've got solid evidence to counter this existing (and longstanding) evidence, bring it forward. If all you've got is a "feeling", that and 5 bucks will get you a cup of strong coffee.

How did Smith know he was dealing with the "sole author?" Or are you simply assuming this belief because only one person met with him?

Your characterization of the multiple author theory as lacking "one whit of evidence" is absurd and betrays your bias. The numerous references to "we..." the apparent tacking-on of a magic section... the fact that no single candidate seems to fit the bill... similarities in the the style and content of EATCT's "Preface" versus those of other Drake publications (when Drake purportedly played no role in the book's development). The fact that this path has been virtually ignored in favor of wishful anagrams, flawed German translations of "erdnase," and wild speculation makes it no less valid.

JHostler wrote: ... similarities in the the style and content of EATCT's "Preface" versus those of other Drake publications (when Drake purportedly played no role in the book's development).

This is interesting and something I don't remember seeing. Do you have any examples of these other Drake prefaces that are similar and make you think they were written by the same person as the Erdnase preface?

I have put my thinking on the Roterberg involvement in writing. It is a work in progress. My Erdnase profile is as follows:

-------------------------------------------I believe that Erdnase was a magician friend, colleague or customer of Roterberg - a fellow immigrant from Germany - who saw Roterberg's success with his magic books and who wanted to copy this success for his own benefit. Being a gambler who used his sleight-of-hand to gain an advantage in gambling he did not want to use his real name and thus he wrote it under the pseudonym S.W. Erdnase, his childhood nickname. Roterberg showed him the ropes, potentially helped with the writing/editing, and connected him with the publisher Drake or perhaps even did all the administrative work for Erdnase.-------------------------------------------

3. Statement by Del Adelphia that he met Erdnase, and it was only one guy.

4. If Erdnase had been more than one guy, it would have been less likely that his identity would still be unknown at this date ("one can keep a secret, two can't").

5. The use of "we" is obviously the editorial we (although some grammarians might say it is improperly used). I don't see anywhere where "we" is used that the context requires that it mean more than one person.

6. And despite its use, the author clearly refers to himself in the singular as well, in one of the most well-known quotes from the book: "if it sells it will accomplish the primary motive of the author, as he needs the money." See also "the writer [singular] uses no sophistry" and "The writer has expended much time and care . . .".

7. Neither the copyright application nor the attribution of the author on the title page refer to more than one author.

8. While reference is made to partners, allies, collusion, etc., the book is written primarily for the lone player. The methods taught are for the single advantage player, rather than for partners (for example, the "spread" isn't included in the book). Erdnase preferred to work alone at the table -- why assume he wanted partners in writing?

9. The author claims originality with respect to several sleights, a statement which makes much more sense if the author were one person rather than several. The sleights in question aren't performed by a group, but by a single player or performer.

Noted JHostler, it's a "feeling" you've got, and it's as valid as anybody else's opinion as to authorship.

In support of my statement though, I'll highlight an actual fact regarding when Smith met Erdnase in the cold hotel room. Smith felt he was meeting with the author of the book because that's how Erdnase presented himself, and did the business at hand with Smith ... as the author of the book.

So as not to make that statement in a vacuum, Smith said this of Erdnase:

"The man I met, I'm sure was the real article. He was good, he was honest with me. By that I do not mean the money, I have in mind the way he talked to me. He put more cards on the table than was necessary. He withheld nothing. I liked his ways. He sold himself to me".

Last edited by Roger M. on November 12th, 2014, 10:09 am, edited 2 times in total.

Bill, as I wrote, I think Roterberg is most likely not the author, but a colleague, friend or customer of Roterberg is in my opinion Erdnase. Naturally, Roterberg wouldn't claim authorship for it, even if he was involved on some level.

I would assume the essay is the same, but perhaps Richard Hatch can comment on this himself.

His occupation is important as it provides the framework for how Erdnase managed to put in the 10 or 20 thousand hours of practice to not only develop the sleights in the book, but also to become proficient enough at them that he could execute them, which we know he did for Smith.

It would seem that pursuing a candidate who worked at a desk alongside 20 other office workers for 40 hours a week for a decade, might not be as solid a lead as a man who spent that decade or more sitting in the caboose of a train, by himself, deck of cards in hand.

Chris, what does your profile do for a living, such that he would have the immense amount of time required to develop the sleights, perfect the sleights, and then write the book?Also Chris, some luminaries are on the record commenting that the book is obviously unedited, where do you see a second writers hand helping with the editing?

As much as I love the book, I do feel it is a poorly edited mish-mash of otherwise amazing information, and containing far too many errors, and too much complex "inside" word play to have seen the hand of an experienced editor.

My profile above was not written in the correct priority order. First and foremost I believe Erdnase was an immigrant from Germany and Erdnase was his childhood nickname. This is a new and different explanation of the name and opens up a new line of inquiry. My supporting facts for this are

- the word Erdnase(n) has been in use in German literature before EATCT was published- plenty of evidence that Erdnase is being used as nickname for kids and pets in Germany- linguistic analysis of EATCT reveals noun phrases which are common in German

On top of this I propose that Erdnase and Roterberg knew each other. This is a weaker assumption but nevertheless quite plausible. Exactly what kind of relationship that might have been - friend, colleague, customer - I don't know.

I recall Hurt posting on a few forums related to fairy tales, and specifically European fairy tales - asking about the use of the name "Erdnase" in German fairy tales.Most of those posts were (and still are) unanswered by others.

Is there some other source for the information related to Erdnase as a common nickname for kids and/or pets?

Roger, my best guess at Erdnase's occupation is jobless. I picture him as a relatively poor German immigrant who came to the US with big dreams but they didn't quite pan out the way he imagined. So he spends most of his time practicing card sleights and scrapes out a living gambling with his sleight-of-hand advantage. Now he sees Roterberg doing quite well as author of magic books and card magic books. Erdnase being an expert with cards decides to write his own book modeled on Roterberg's.

His friendship with Roterberg is not essential. Maybe he didn't know Roterberg, just his books, and learned from them how to write a book and get it published.

So my Roterberg association argument is only one possible line to pursue, but not essential. I personally think it is likely that he knew Roterberg, had contact with him on some level, but it is not essential. How much involvement Roterberg had is also open to further analysis. Maybe Roterberg was kind of the editor, or maybe Roterberg was simply there to connect Erdnase with Drake and give Erdnase some other publishing pointers, or perhaps no connection at all.

Roger M. wrote:I recall Hurt posting on a few forums related to fairy tales, and specifically European fairy tales - asking about the use of the name "Erdnase" in German fairy tales.Most of those posts were (and still are) unanswered by others.

Chris -- You say "The author of The Expert at the Card Table uses noun phrases which are extremely common in German. As a native German speaker I would go so far as to say that these noun phrases are quintessential German. I am therefore convinced that the author's first language was German. "

Roterberg was a native German speaker -- do you see similar stylistic quirks in his writings? How about in the writings of Ted Lesley, Denis Behr, Roberto Giobbi, or other native German speakers? I believe Houdini grew up in a German-speaking home -- what about him?